Reeve,

The background radiation would be the solution to Olber's paradox. Since redshift is proportional to distance, this is light that has been shifted completely off the visible spectrum. That it is so smooth, at 3.7k, suggests some phase transition at that level. Possibly it is only stable to that level and then starts to shift to other forms of energies. I think gravity is not so much a property of mass, but energy converting to mass and condensing into ever denser forms of matter. They can't find dark matter, but there is an unexplained excess of cosmic rays on the perimeters of galaxies. When mass breaks down and releases energy/radiation, it creates pressure, so possibly the opposite process would create a vacuum. Which goes back to the 3.7k. Possibly that is an initial condensation point of radiation into some primary particle like entity.

Time dilation is due to the fact that since nothing can exceed C and the internal activity of atomic structure, the spin/vibration of electrons, approaches C, if that structure is accelerated to some fraction of the speed of light, the internal activity has to slow, so the combination of velocity and spin doesn't exceed C. So if you have a clock, the rate of atomic activity is affected by velocity and gravity, given the equivalence principle. It's not that the clock in the accelerated frame is traveling a different time vector, but that it has a faster burn rate. It's not traveling into the future faster, but into the past faster, since it ages quicker. This distortion of atomic structure also explains length contraction, since the atom is flattened by the action.

While this effect is apparent for GPS satellites, I think various scenarios put forth, such as time stopping for someone falling into a black hole, are nonsense. Safe to say, if you fell into the core of a galaxy, you would quickly be fried and the ashes scattered. It's a bit like saying that time has stopped for that log I threw on the fire, since it turned to light and light has no internal structure, therefore a clock traveling at the speed of light wouldn't record any change, but time still goes on for me, as I watch the log burn.

In this cycle of expanding energy and contracting mass, I think galaxies are gravitational vortices, not warped space. If they account for all the energy being radiated away, as well as that shot out the poles, it would likely equal all the mass which fell in. It's then radiated for billions of lightyears, until being absorbed by other mass, or finally reaching that degree of being spread so finely and becoming part of the black body radiation of the cosmic background and the cycle starts over.

Some interesting reading;

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2007/9/modern-cosmology-science-or-folktale

http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_WaveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf

http://phys.org/news/2011-06-physics-einstein.html

http://phys.org/news/2011-12-strange-species-ultra-red-galaxy.html

http://phys.org/news/2011-12-spitzer-hubble-telescopes-rare-galaxy.html

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-fermi-gamma-rays-unearth-clues.html

http://phys.org/news/2012-06-rare-case-gravitational-lensing.html

http://phys.org/news/2011-12-mysterious-red-galaxies.html

http://phys.org/news/2012-07-earliest-spiral-galaxy-discovery.html

There is another topic worth considering and that is the nature of space. Basically physics treats both space and time as measurements, but does measuring space create it? There is a strong tendency to describe it as something, such as the ether, but that doesn't explain inertia. Consider an object so far away from everything as to be in a void. Would it be possible to say it is spinning, without any outside reference? Yet for anything on the surface, spin would create centrifugal force. How could such an effect be due to some outside reference? The only explanation is inertia. That goes back to Zeno's paradox. It overlooks inertia. The only way it would make sense is if for every fractional divide, Achilles and the tortoise both also slow their speed in half. Quite quickly though, they would both be going so slow as to be effectively motionless, as the forward velocity would be less than biological processes, then molecular and then quantum dynamics. Zero has, throughout the course of math and logic, been a poorly considered subject, yet one staring us in the face. We only think in terms of form and motion, not their absence.

Hi Reeve:

I thoroughly enjoyed your interesting essay.

Based on arguments and results presented in my paper - -" From Absurd to Elegant Universe", it is shown that the current cosmological models are inconsistent and paralyzed by several paradoxes including the two described in your paper due to the missing fundamental physics. The first paradox - "If the universe is finite, what caused it?" is caused by the Big Bang singularity resulting from the assumption of an absolute beginning of time t=0. Similarly, the second paradox - "It should not be possible to deduce time-asymmetrical effects from time-symmetrical laws. This specifically refers to the "second law of thermodynamics" which is sometimes called the 'arrow of time" is also an artifact of the assumption of an absolute cosmic time or clock that does not exist in the universe.

It is shown in my paper that the observed universe and galactic expansion can be successfully predicted without any explicit consideration of time in the cosmological model.

My paper provides a new fundamental understanding of the Cosmological Constant and relativistic universe expansion as an alternative to the widely accepted linear Hubble expansion. The current paradoxes and inconsistencies are shown to be artifacts of the missing (hidden) physics of the well-known phenomenon of spontaneous decay. A new Gravity Nullification Model for Universe Expansion (GNMUE) is proposed that integrates the missing physics of the spontaneous mass-energy conversion into a simplified form of general relativity. The model predicts the observed expansion of the universe and galaxies and other data. The model provides answers to key fundamental questions and resolves paradoxes among general relativity, quantum mechanics, and cosmology. It also bridges the gap between quantum mechanics and relativity theories via revealing relativistic understanding of the inner workings of quantum mechanics. The impact of the new understanding on widely-accepted fundamental assumptions is discussed and a new wholesome perspective on reality is provided.

I would greatly appreciate your comments on my paper.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

5 days later

Dear Reeve,

In my essay the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter is studied. In this theory your questions are resolved in such way. The problem of 'arrow of time' must be investigated in view of all levels of matter. A reason for the 'arrow of time' is different rate of time at low levels of matter. At the level of atoms time goes much more quickly then at the level of star, so any macro-event first of all take place at the low levels of matter. On one hand the physics equations are symmetrical in time, on the other hand the arrow means different probability for inverse processes. Other reason for the arrow - action of fundamental fields (gravitational and electromagnetic) is such that there is only spherical planets, stars, nucleons and so on are formed. These fields may be explained in the concept of Le Sage as it is applied to all levels of matter. One direction of gravitational field gives one direction for all other events. And at the atomic level of matter there is strong gravitation.

Since particles can formed in Universe in one scenario here no problem with the similarity of properties in different parts of Universe. I invite you to have a look to my essay.

Sergey Fedosin Essay

A highly intellectual approach to a fundamental assumption of physics (that the universe is infinite).It's easy to accept the infinite view,seeing that space extends endlessly in all directions, even a child staring into a night sky wonders where it all ends.As you point out, the laws of thermodynamics,BB and expansion rule out an infinite universe.Inferential measurements also obtain a definite mass for the universe,therefore it is finite.The expanding spherical shell (brane) model is ,in all likelihood,correct.Your solution proposes a heat-death as the maximum entropy of such a model when all its mass will have decayed ,but then you wonder how you'd describe space-structure thereafter.Would that not be the end of it? Consider Steve Dufourny's infinite light eventuality( Aug. 22, 2012 comment) as the singularity you yourself envisage but spoil with the reversed thermodynamics(time reversal cannot happen because of the grandfather's paradox).On the other hand, if you were that heretic out there( doesn't mean you are one) ,unbound by space-time,the universe is not dead as you can still see it evolving from beginning to the end,just like a movie. but then,as you said, one cannot exist that way.Here,QM comes in to describe existence as 'states' of the quantum wave (mind?),possibilities of which are infinite.

    Dear Reeve,

    Why do think that in the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter should be a heat-death as the maximum entropy? It is not so. Firstly, the entropy of stars is negative, and if the radius of star is little the entropy is more negative. Secondly we must take into account entropy of gravitational fields. Gravitons of low levels of matter carry negentropy to the high levels of matter.

    Also the Universe is not a closed system so the law of maximum entropy do not work.

    Sergey Fedosin Essay

    6 days later
    5 days later
    7 days later

    The computer and the universe

    John Archibald Wheeler

    Abstract

    The reasons are briefly recalled why (1) time cannot be a primordial category in the description of nature, but secondary, approximate and derived, and (2) the laws of physics could not have been engraved for all time upon a tablet of granite, but had to come into being by a higgledy-piggledy mechanism. It is difficult to defend the view that existence is built at bottom upon particles, fields of force or space and time. Attention is called to the "elementary quantum phenomenon" as potential building element for all that is. The task of construction of physics from such elements is compared and contrasted with the problem of constructing a computer out of "yes, no" devices.

    Preparation for publication assisted by the University of Texas Center for Theoretical Physics and by National Science Foundation Grant No. PHY78-26592.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/ck753337h0515573/

      Dear Reeve,

      Interesting essay. I think your account of thermodynamic death is quite more complicated than what you suggest. On the other hand, you may not know but there is a book edited by Calude and Paun entitled Finite versus Infinite, I though you would like the reference, it is published by Springer. Good luck.

        Reeve

        Excellent analysis of finite cosmology, though not including the odd good early cyclic models (i.e. Dicke/Peebles) it included a few I wasn't aware of. I'm quite convinced a cyclic model is correct, and have evolved another version (in review) based on a scale invariant model of AGN accretion and re-ionization (in astrophysical or 'quasar' jets). This implies a secular galaxy evolution model over a shorter cycle. Watch this space! The patterns of CMBR anisotropy provide consistent evidence for such a pattern, with hellicity on the 'axis of evil' of flow.

        Your essay helped me focus better on a few associated issues, though I've never been a fan of the 2nd Law. And think it is quite co-incidental, the effects emerging naturally from the process.

        My essay this year is about the fundamental physics from which it arises. The end notes mention it and last years essay (Community 10th) also discussed it. I hope you'll read this years and give me any comments.

        Best wishes.

        Peter

        Dear Reeve,

        Your essay is very interesting. No doubt these are very profound issues, so you'll forgive me for not yet completely understanding your proposals. I would be grateful if you would answer a few questions.

        First, however, in regard to Loschmidt's paradox, let me remark that one way in which a preferred direction can emerge is through asymmetry of configuration space, even if there is no notion of time in the "classical universes" or "configurations." This happens in Barbour's shape dynamics, I believe. My version of causal theory described in my essay here also uses configuration space asymmetry, but I take causal relations to be fundamental, so my "classical universes" do have a directed structure.

        Now for my questions:

        1. I don't quite understand the following, and I'm sure this is a dumb question, but I want to know the answer. You say (page 3):

        "Let us now consider something unconventional: Let's suppose that the heat death is actually the starting point of the system. If this was the case, how would we expect to see the system evolve over time? Since the system would begin in a state of maximum entropy, the second law of thermodynamics would tells us that the system was overwhelming more likely to evolve into states of lower entropy as time went on. The system should evolve into a low-entropy singularity."

        Are you already making a finiteness assumption at this point? It seems that the answer is no, because only afterwards do you invoke the Poincare recurrence. But without a finiteness assumption, I see no reason to believe that the system would ever progress appreciably toward a low-entropy singularity; as soon as it leaves the maximum entropy equilibrium, it seems that it would tend to return. The initial phase space motion would be toward lower entropy, but I don't see how you get to the low-entropy singularity.

        2. Have you looked at Cristinel Stoica's essay? He proposes a "singular" version of relativity in which information is preserved through Bing-Bang-like events. I have no idea if it is actually right, but it is serious and precise work. You might be interested in taking a look.

        3. How would you relate the concept of "time" to the concept of "cause and effect?" In particular, do you believe the universe possesses distinct temporal and causal structures? The reason I ask is because some of your statements seem to accord a primary status to time; for instance, "On the other hand, if you were to travel towards the Big Bang you would see that, over time, systems would go from disorder to more and more ordered states; decreasing entropy until finally you found yourself at the "big crush" a.k.a the Big Bang. Following this thought, it is obvious that we humans should see entropy increasing overall since we are biological systems existing within a series of temporally connected events that are tilted away from the Big Bang."

        Please don't interpret my questions as negative criticism; in fact, I rate your essay very high for interest and relevance even if I don't yet know to what extent I might agree with your views. Good luck with the contest, and take care,

        Ben Dribus

          If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

          Sergey Fedosin

            Benjamin,

            Thank you for the response and questions. :)

            In reply to the first question: What you have to remember is that we're dealing with huge time scales and in terms of phase space, the section representing maximum entropy will be vastly larger than all of the others - it will take up nearly all of the volume, even if that volume is infinite. This means that any slight deviations i.e. fluctuations from the huge volume will be extremely likely to take the point in phase space into regions of extremely lower entropy.

            In answer to your time question, not wanting to get too much into the metaphysics of time, I would say that I take the geometrical view of time that Relativity gives us and I think that time is symmetrical.

            I shall also have to take a look at Stoica's essay :)